Impact of EU regulatory label changes for diclofenac in people with cardiovascular disease in four countries:interrupted time series regression analysis

Objective: Due to cardiovascular safety concerns, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended new contraindications and changes to product information for diclofenac across Europe in 2013. This study aims to measure their impact among targeted populations. Method: Quarterly interrupted time series regression (ITS) analyses of diclofenac initiation among cohorts with contraindications (congestive cardiac failure [CHF], ischaemic heart disease [IHD], peripheral arterial disease [PAD], cerebrovascular disease [CVD]) and cautions (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes) from Denmark, the Netherlands, England and Scotland. Results: The regulatory action was associated with significant immediate absolute reductions in diclofenac initiation in all countries for IHD (Denmark −0.08%, 95%CI −0.13, −0.03; England −0.09%, 95%CI −0.13 to −0.06%; the Netherlands −1.84%, 95%CI −2.51 to −1.17%; Scotland −0.34%, 95%CI −0.38 to −0.30%), PAD and hyperlipidaemia, the Netherlands, England and Scotland for hypertension and diabetes, and England and Scotland for CHF and CVD. Post-intervention there was a significant negative trend in diclofenac initiation in the Netherlands for IHD (−0.12%, 95%CI −0.19 to −0.04), PAD (−0.13%, 95%CI −0.22 to −0.05), hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes, and in Scotland for CHF (−0.01%, 95%CI −0.02 to −0.007%), IHD (−0.017, 95%CI −0.02, −0.01%), PAD and hypertension. In England, diclofenac initiation rates fell less steeply. In Denmark changes were more strongly associated with the earlier EMA 2012 regulatory action. Conclusion: Although significant reductions in diclofenac initiation occurred, patients with contraindications continued to be prescribed diclofenac, the extent of which varied by country and target condition. Understanding reasons for such variation may help to guide the design or dissemination of future safety warnings

Impact of comorbid conditions on asthmatic adults and children

Comorbid conditions (comorbidities) can complicate the diagnosis and management of asthma. In different age groups, comorbid conditions can present varying challenges, including diagnostic confusion due to mimicking asthma symptoms, exacerbation of asthma symptoms, therapy for comorbid conditions affecting asthma or therapy for asthma affecting these conditions. This review aims to summarise some common comorbid conditions with asthma, such as rhinitis, vocal cord dysfunction, gastro-oesophageal reflux, psychiatric disorders, obesity and obstructive sleep apnoea, and discuss their prevalence, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment, highlighting any differences in how they impact children and adults. Overall, there is a lack of data on the impact of treating comorbid conditions on asthma outcomes and further studies are needed to guide age-appropriate asthma management in the presence of these conditions.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.A.K. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Griffols, Teva, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Paladdin, Pfizer, Purdue, Sanofi and Trudel, outside the submitted work. D.M.G.H. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi and Pfizer and grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, outside the submitted work. S.J.S. reports fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Propeller Health, Regeneron and Sanofi, outside the submitted work all paid to the University of Colorado School of Medicinepublished version, accepted version, submitted versio

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified